SHELTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, No. 3:2011cv00075 - Document 14 (W.D. Pa. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER denying 9 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 11 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is affirmed. See Memorandum Judgment Order for further details. Signed by Judge Gustave Diamond on 8/27/12. (kw)

Download PDF
SHELTON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COY L. SHELTON, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 11 75J MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM JUDGMENT ORDER AND NOW, r-: day this consideration of the part of August, 2012, upon due , cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to plaintiff's request for review of the decision of the Commissioner of application for Social Security disability ("Commissioner") insurance benefits denying his ( "DIB" ) and supplemental security income ("SS1") under Title II and Title XVI, respectively, of the Soc Security Act, IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner's motion summary judgment (Document No. 11) be, and the same hereby is, granted and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Document No.9) be, and the same hereby is, denied. As the factfinder, an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") has an obligation to weigh all of the facts and evidence of record and may rej ect or discount reasons for doing so. Cir. 1999). 'll>.A072 substantial any evidence if Plummer v. Apfel, the ALJ explains the 186 F.3d 422, (3d 429 Where the ALJ's findings of fact are supported by evidence, a reviewing court is bound by those (Rev, 8/82) Dockets.Justia.com findings, even differently. 2001). if it would have Fargnoli v. Moreover, it is decided Massanari, well the factual 247 F.3d 34, settled determined merely by the presence of that 38 disability impairments, inquiry (3d Cir. is not but by the effect that those impairments have upon an individual's ability to perform substantial gainful activity. 125, 129 (3d Cir. 1991). These Jones v. Sullivan, 954 F.2d well-established principles preclude a reversal or remand of the ALJ's decision here because the record contains substantial evidence to support the ALJ 's findings and conclusions. Plaintiff filed his applications for DIB and SSI on April 9, 2007, alleging disability beginning on June hepatitis C, dyslexia and seizures. denied. 2008. 19, 2006, due to Plaintiff's applications were At plaintiff's request, an ALJ held a hearing on May 6, On May 29, 2008, plaintiff is not disabled. the ALJ issued a decision finding that The Appeals Council denied plaintiff's request for review on July 8, 2010, making the ALJ's decision the final decision of the Commissioner. The instant action followed. Plaintiff, who has a high school education through a general equivalency degree, was 53 years old at the time of the ALJ's decision and is classified as an individual closely approaching advanced age under the regulations. 416.963 (d) . 20 C.F.R. §§404.1563(d), Plaintiff has past relevant work experience as an asbestos removal worker, a blow mold operator and a packer, but he has not engaged in substantial gainful activity at any time since his alleged onset date of disability. <!::.Aon (Rev. 8/82) - 2 ­ After reviewing plaintiff's medical records and hearing testimony from plaintiff and a vocational expert at the hearing, the ALJ concluded that meaning of the Act. plaintiff is not disabled within the Although the medical evidence established that plaintiff suffers from the severe impairments of hepatitis C, coronary artery disease, hypertension, asthmatic bronchitis, vision problems, a history of a learning disorder, and a history of alcohol and substance abuse, combination, those impairments, alone or in do not meet or equal the criteria of any of the listed impairments set forth in Appendix 1 of 20 C.F.R., Subpart P, Regulation No.4 ("Appendix 111). The ALJ found that plaintiff retains the residual functional capacity to perform light work with additional non-exertional limitations. Plaintiff is limited to occupations that do not require bilateral visual acuity, depth perception, balancing, exposure to dangerous machinery or unprotected heights, climbing ladders, ropes and scaffolds, more than occasional feeling with the left upper extremity, odors, dusts, gases, poor ventilation. and concentrated exposure to fumes, chemical irritants or an environment with In addition, plaintiff is limited to simple, routine and repetitive tasks that are not performed in a fastpaced production environment and that involve only simple work related decisions and relatively few work place changes. plaintiff is reading for calculations. limited to work that does comprehension require prolonged and Finally, plaintiff requires work that does not - 3 ­ or mathematical content '<l!.AOn (Rev. 8/82) not Further, involve the handling, sale or preparation of food, alcoholic beverages or access to narcotic drugs, and he is precluded from working in the medical field (collectively, the "RFC Finding") . As a result of these limitations, the ALJ determined that plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work. based upon the vocational expert's testimony, However, the ALJ concluded that plaintiff's age, educational background, work experience and residual functional capacity enable him to perform other work that exists in significant numbers in the national economy, such as a laundry folder, Accordingly, hand packer, laborer or sorter/grader. the ALJ found that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. The Act defines "disability" as the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity by reason of a physical or mental impairment that can be expected to last for a continuous period of at least twelve months. 42 U.S.C. §§423 (d) (1) (A), 1382c(a) (3) (A). The impairment or impairments must be so severe that the claimant "is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial national economy .... " gainful work which exists in the 42 U.S.C. §§423(d) (2) (A), 1382c(a) (3) (B). The Commissioner has promulgated regulations that incorporate a five-step sequential evaluation process for determining whether a claimant is disabled. The ALJ must determine: (1) whether the claimant is currently engaged in substantial gainful activity; (2) if not, whether he has a severe impairment; ~A072 (Rev, 8/82) - 4 ­ (3) if so, whether his impairment meets or equals the criteria listed in Appendix Ii if not, whether the claimant's impairment performing his past relevant work; and prevents (5) if so, him (4) from whether the claimant can perform any other work that exists in the national economy, in light of residual functional 416.920(a) (4). his age, education, capacity. 1 20 work experience and C.F.R. §§404.1520(a) (4), If the claimant is found disabled or not disabled at any step, further inquiry is unnecessary. In this case, plaintiff argues that the ALJ erred at step 5 of the sequential inadequate weight neurologist; evaluation to the process opinion because: of (1) plaintiff's he gave treating (2) he failed to consider plaintiff's exemplary work record and thus improperly evaluated plaintiff's credibilitYi and (3) he posed an inadequate hypothetical question to the vocational expert. The court finds that these arguments lack merit. First, plaintiff argues that the ALJ led to give appropriate weight to the opinion of his treating neurologist, Dr. Joseph Clark. A treating physician's opinion is entitled to controlling weight if it is well-supported by medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques and is inconsistent with the other substantial evidence of record. C.F.R. §§404.1527(c) (2), 416.927(c) (2). not 20 Under this standard, the lResidual functional capacity is defined as that which an individual still is able to do despite the limitations caused by his impairments. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545{a} {I}, 416.945{a} {I} i Fargnoli, 247 F.3d at 40. In a claimant's residual functional capacity, the ALJ is required to consider his ability to meet the physical, mental, sensory and other requirements of work. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1545{a} {4}, 416.945{a} (4). '<l>.A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 5 ­ ALJ properly determined that Dr. Clark's opinion should be given only minimal weight. Dr. Clark (R. 29). indicated on a form report entitled Physician Evaluation for Coy Shelton" that plaintiff perform even sedentary work. (R. 393). "Treating unable to In addition, Dr. Clark indicated on the form report that plaintiff would require frequent rest breaks throughout the workday, and he would miss 10 to 15 days of work per month because of his condition. (R. 392). As the ALJ explained in his opinion, Dr. Clark's restrictive assessment of contradicted plaintiff's by his own capabilities treatment on the notes, form report which is indicated plaintiff's physical and neurological examinations were generally normal. (R. 365-66, 370-71, 377-78, addition, Dr. Clark's restrictive 380-81, assessment 383 84). of In plaintiff's functional ability was further contradicted by objective medical tests, including a motor nerve and sensory nerve study and a magnetic resonance angiography ("MRA") indicated normal results, of plaintiff's neck that and an MRA of the Circle of Willis, which is a circle of arteries that supply blood to the brain, that showed no aneurysm inflammatory changes. or vascular malformations and only some (R. 363-64, 374-75). The ALJ also correctly noted that Dr. Clark's opinion was undermined by plaintiff's activities of daily living. Although plaintiff disagrees with the ALJ's characterization of his daily activities, the record confirms that plaintiff is able to drive, cut grass with a riding lawn mower, run errands, assist with some ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 6 ­ household chores such as taking out the trash, repairs and paying bills, and he also takes short walks, visits with relatives and watches television (R. 87, 89, 90 91, 429-33, 435). Based on the foregoing, this court concludes that Dr. Clark's own treatment notes, as well as plaintiff's activities of daily living, contradict his opinion that plaintiff is unable to perform even sedentary work. Therefore, correctly determined Dr. minimal weight. the court finds that the ALJ Clark's opinion was entitled to only (R. 29). Plaintiff next contends that the ALJ did not properly assess his credibility because employment record. 403 he failed to consider his exemplary Relying on Dobrowolsky v. Califano, 606 F.2d (3d Cir. 1979), plaintiff argues that a claimant with a long work history is entitled to substantial credibility regarding his description of his work capabilities. After reviewing the record, the court concludes that the ALJ properly evaluated plaintiff's credibility in accordance with the regulations. A claimant's subjective complaints of pain and other symptoms must be supported by objective medical and other evidence. C.F.R. 358, §§404.1529(c), 362 (3d Cir. 416.929(c)i 1999). An Hartranft v. ALJ may rej ect Apfel, the 20 181 F.3d claimant's subjective testimony if he does not find it credible so long as he explains why he is rejecting the testimony. Schaudeck v. Commissioner of Social Security, 181 F.3d 429, 433 (3d Cir. 1999). Here, in assessing plaintiff's credibility, the ALJ considered all of the relevant evidence in the record, ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 7 ­ including the medical evidence, plaintiff's activities of daily living, plaintiff's treatment, plaintiff's own the extent of statements about his symptoms and reports by his physicians about his symptoms and how they affect him. 419.929(c) (1)-(3); determined produce that some 20 §§404.1529(c) (1)-(3), Social Security Ruling 96-7p. plaintiff's of C.F.R. the conditions symptoms he could alleged, The ALJ then be but expected his to subjective complaints regarding the limiting effect of his symptoms were not credible to Finding. the (R. extent 25). explained the basis satisfied that they were This court inconsistent finds that with RFC the ALJ adequately his credibility determination, such determination is the and is supported by substantial evidence. Plaintiff's specific contention that the ALJ did not properly assess his credibility because he failed to consider plaintiff's exemplary work record lacks merit. testimony of a claimant with a While it is true that the long work history may be given substantial credibility concerning his claimed limitations, Dobrowolsky, see 606 F.2d at 409, work history is only one of many factors an ALJ may consider in assessing a claimant's subjective complaints. 20 C.F.R. §§404.1529(c) (3), 416.929(c) (3). Indeed, a claimant's work history alone is not dispositive of the question of his credibility, and an ALJ is not required to equate a long work history with enhanced credibility. Christl v. Astrue, 2008 WL 4425817, *12 (W.D.Pa. September 30, 2008). Here, the ALJ clearly was aware of plaintiff's work history 'li>.A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 8 ­ and referred to it in his decision when he determined plaintiff could not perform his past relevant work. 2 that (R. 29-30). It likewise is clear from the ALJ's decision that he considered the record as .§: discussed above. whole in assessing plaintiff's credibility as An exemplary work history in and of itself is insufficient to overcome the substantial evidence supporting the ALJ's credibility determination, thus a remand of this case is not warranted. Plaintiff's final argument is that the ALJ's hypothetical question to the vocational expert was inadequate because it relied upon an RFC Finding that did not incorporate certain work-related limitations identified by Dr. Clark. This argument essentially repeats plaintiff's contention that the ALJ gave inadequate weight to Dr. Clark's opinion, an argument which already has been rejected for reasons explained above. An ALJ's hypothetical question to a vocational expert must reflect all of the claimant's supported by the medical evidence. 1269, 1276 (3d Cir. 1987). impairments and limitations Chrupcala v. Heckler, 829 F.2d In this case, the ALJ's hypothetical accounted for all of plaintiff's work-related limitations that were supported by the evidence of record and incorporated into the RFC Finding. Accordingly, the ALJ did not err in relying on the court also notes the ALJ acknowledged at the administrative hearing that plaintiff had "generally steady earnings records," which in the ALJ's opinion "enhances the credibility of his subjective allegations." (R. 456). This statement by the ALJ indicates he was well aware of ff' s work history and considered it as a positive factor in evaluating plaintiff 's credibil ~A072 (Rev. 8/82) - 9 ­ vocational expert's testimony to conclude that plaintiff can perform other work that exists in the national economy. In conclusion, after carefully and methodically considering all of the medical evidence of record, the ALJ determined that plaintiff is not disabled within the meaning of the Act. ALJ's findings and conclusions are supported evidence and are not otherwise erroneous. by The substantial Therefore, the decision of the Commissioner must be affirmed. ~t~~d / Gustave Diambnd United States District Judge cc: Lindsay Fulton Osterhout, Esq. 521 Cedar Way Suite 200 Oakmont, PA 15139 Stephanie L. Haines Assistant U.S. Attorney 319 Washington Street Room 224, Penn Traffic Building Johnstown, PA 15901 '<ll.AOn (Rev. 8/82) - 10 ­

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.